Friday, September 03, 2010

A high powered and well connected "veterans group" has issued a letter backing "Park 51", the Islamic community center and mosque proposed for Lower Manhattan - the popularly known "Ground Zero Mosque".

According to Joel Wendland, himself an army veteran and editor of the Communist Party USA newsite Peoples World, the organization VoteVets.org, believes that the proposed mosque should be supported on Constitutional grounds and will serve to enhance U.S. national security in the long term.

Authored by VoteVets.org, an organization that advocates for veterans' issues and supports veterans for elected office, the letter urged the Park51 organizers not to abandon the project.

In addition the letter asked the group to circulate the letter to any interested party, "so they know that veterans like us see this as an important issue of our very Constitution and our national security."

The veterans cited their sworn oath as members of the military "to uphold the Constitution" as a basic reason for their support for the project.

The letter noted the hypocrisy of the opponents of the project:

"For all the talk these days from some quarters about the importance of protecting the Constitution and allowing the free market to work unfettered, those same people are fighting against your community's right to buy property and worship freely. Our duty to protect the Constitution didn't end when our service did. It's up to us to stand up for the right for all Americans to enjoy the Constitutional freedoms that so many around the world don't have. So, we are standing up for you."

Protection of the rights of all Americans to practice their faith in the manner of their choosing would also "deal a blow to the propaganda of al Qaeda and Islamist extremists, who recruit on the talking point that the United States is in a war against Islam."

Finally, the letter noted that taking a stand on behalf of the Constitution promotes the safety of U.S. military forces abroad.

"As veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan," it concluded, "we believe the construction of your community center isn't 'anti-America' at all. In fact, building your community center is about as pro-America as one can get."

Who are these patriots, taking such a noble stand for the U.S. Constitution and the safety and security of America's troops and citizenry?

While professing to be a non partisan group, it appears that almost all of VoteVets.org's supported candidates are Democrats. The group's Political Action Committee is charged with seeking to elect Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans to public office – "regardless of party".

However, between 2006 and 2010 VoteVets.org gave $228,700 to Democratic Party candidates and only $15,100 to Republican candidates.

Jim Mowrer of the Senior Advisory Board of VoteVets.org served as the State Veterans Director for Senator Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. He is currently an assistant organizer of the Iowa Democratic Veterans Caucus

Democrat connected personnel include;

Alex Cornell du Houx of the Senior Advisory Board of VoteVets.org serves as the National Council Chair for the College Democrats of America and was formally the co-president of the Maine College Democrats

Joe Kramer of the Senior Advisory Board of VoteVets.org has worked for Democrat Jim Ferlo, State Rep for PA

J. Ashwin Madia, Vice-Chairman of VoteVets.org was a Democratic nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives for Minnesota's 3rd Congressional District.

Miranda Norman of the Senior Advisory Board of VoteVets.org has become active in local Democratic politics. She currently serves as the Secretary for the Oklahoma Democratic Veterans Committee, served as a delegate to the Young Democrats of America National Convention, and is a member of the University of Oklahoma College Democrats

Miguel A. Sapp of the Senior Advisory Board of VoteVets.org has works as chief of staff and legislative director for Congressional Progressive Caucus member, Sheila Jackson-Lee. In addition he has served as an attorney for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Matthew Alexander (pseudonym) writes for VoteVets.org online project VetVoice. He is a former senior military interrogator. He led an interrogation team in Iraq that located Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former Al Qaida leader, who was killed in a subsequent airstrike. He has conducted more than 300 interrogations and supervised more than 1,000. Alexander has served for 17 years in the Air Force and Air Force Reserves. Alexander is a fellow at the Open Society Institute.

At least four members of VoteVets.org's Board of Advisors are also involved with the Center for American Progress;

General Wesley K. Clark (ret.) is an author of the books Winning Modern Wars and Waging Modern War, published by PublicAffairs Books, which has also published authors such as George Soros. Wesley Clark has served as a Trustee of the Center for American Progress and was a 2008 Democratic party presidential hopeful.

Elaine C. Kamarck is a Lecturer in Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School, Harvard University. In the 1980s, Kamarck was one of the founders of the New Democrat movement that helped elect Bill Clinton president. She served in the White House from 1993 to 1997, where she created and managed the Clinton Administration's National Performance Review, also known as reinventing government. In 1979 she was involved with Democratic Agenda, an attempt by socialist leader Michael Harrington (founder of Democratic Socialists of America) to move the Democratic Party to the left. Lamarck serves on the Advisory Board of the Center for American Progress.

Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic Party Senator from Nebraska and a Trustee of the Center for American Progress

The "Ground Zero Mosque" issue has divided America. Pro mosque "progressives" are on the defensive against a huge groundswell of public opinion against the project.

Is the the call by VoteVets.org, for Park51 to go ahead a genuine attempt to shed light the issue, by calling for tolerance and extending an olive branch to moderate Islam?

Or is it a cynical ploy by the Obama Administration and its allies, to take some heat out of the issue, by using "veterans" as cover for what is essentially a "progressive" agenda?

Americans rightly respect their veterans and tend to listen to their opinions. Would the public be happy to know that VoteVets.org was connected to both President Barack Obama and the not so popular George Soros?

The former servicemen and women of VoteVets.org are genuine veterans, but are their paymasters genuine patriots?

Should VoteVets.org's opinions on this issue be respected? Or should Americans view them as little but cynical propaganda from quarters who have previously shown little regard for the U.S. Constitution, national security, or the well-being of American troops in the field?

16 Comments:

Anonymous said...

See what happens when you make "MONEY" your god!!!You lose sight of what the real issue is and you then lose your soul along with your honor. Oh that these vets are really whom they say they are!!May God (not money) allow them to see the difference between right and wrong. These vets whom have served this country are certainly deserving of praise, BUT (the great negator)their vision need a lot to be desired. HMM...why with all the connections they have, what possibly can be the outcome of their lives????

I really want to thank Glenn Beck for this web-site. I am a military veteran who has supported and defended the Constitution of the United States all my adult life. I love Veteran's. However, this information has opened my eye's to decern the deception of the left. God bless and my God bless America.

Great job exposing these connections this front group has to those who obviously have demonstrated nothing but contempt for our Constitution! Of course, the Communist Party USA has our best interests in individual liberty at heart!! ... So glad your new website has arrived to do this important work! Wish you the best!

As a Veteran myself, I fail to understand how anyone who once put his life on the line to defend America could work with those who are determined to destroy her. It makes me wonder whether any of these "vets" have honorable discharges.

Not all that long ago, before the matter of the "Ground Zero" mosque came up, if you mentioned the 1st Amendment, people would have assumed you were talking about Freedom of Speech. In fact, of the 45 words which make up the 1st Amendment, only 16 pertain to religion. The essence of it is - Congress, keep your hands off of this. Despite this, in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment when deciding a 1st Amendment issue.

Former Klansman Hugo Black used Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists for the "wall" citation. What Black did not do was use any of Jefferson's many other writings on the subject of the separation of church and state. If he had, it would have more than abundantly clear that Jefferson felt that the national government should stand clear of the issue and leave it up to the states and the churches within the states.

Maybe, in some magical future, we will have members of the Supreme Court who are strict constructionist. That just might be the day they and our elected officials remember their oaths of office which require them to support and defend the Constitution they so blithely ignore.

Much political commentary today relies on characterization, a technique of rhetoric or argumentation that entails labeling something (e.g., as liberal or conservative) and then simply assumes that the thing so labeled has all the attributes of the label. (Another common example arises in the abortion debates, where much energy is devoted to labeling--babies, fetuses, etc.) This technique is a particularly weak form of argument, since it is grounded only in unexamined, unexplained, and perhaps unwarranted assumptions.

This article combines that weak technique with two other lame ones--an ad hominem attack and guilt by association. The article attacks (by characterization) individuals and groups, rather than arguments, issues, or positions, and then attacks the veterans group by associating them with the guilty others.

Yes, agreed. To oppose the support of a group based on its record of donating to Democrats is rather ridiculous. That said, you have to be able to come at these attacks with an intelligent argument, which you do not. I don't disagree with you – rather, I do agree – however pointing out the flawed way that the GOP makes all of its arguments doesn't actually enlighten anyone.Yours is a good point, an obvious observation about how the right categorizes everything – even making everything about right versus left – but you didn't change anybody's mind. It's a good insight, and it's not wrong, but enlightening it is not. Mainly because it lacks the punch that most of these anti-mosque people are getting from Glenn Beck.

This is not about a constitutional right to build a mosque, everyone has agreed they have the right,it is about being sensative to the victms. The Imam says he wants to build bridges on behalf of the Muslims, but you cannot do that by ignoring those victims pain. I've heard moderate muslims agree that building there is not the right thing to do. Along with rights comes responsibilities, and it is not smart to ignore others feelings and to imply if you don't get your way be prepared for peaceful Muslims to then be disenfranchized to join up with the radical to bring us harm. Or that if the Mosque is built the radicals will then seek peace. I'm with the true moderates who say when you live in a non Muslim nation that you need to exercise tolerance and compassion when necessary. I also did not agree with burning the Quaran,but I feel that minister may have wanted to point out that even thow you have a right it may be hurtful to others to exercise your right. America spoke out and he decided it would not be the right thing and he called it off. The Imam should show compassion and build elsewhere.